The Judicial System

[lightdarkness]

but there is no inner selves and no rush rush rush.... are way of life has effected it
like tv and internet has made it so we are not intouch with ourselfes and our kids
we need to take a break from electronics, but it will never happen....

[makaveli121212]

wait a minute a lawyer just cant claim rule 56 and the case is thrown out, the judge has to rule no?

[lightdarkness]

makaveli, i am having trouble understanding your post
which post are you refering to? mine or someone elses?

[Anticrombie0909]

Yes, the judge has to be convinced that the case is frivolous. The problem is, it doesn't often work because its so hard to prove.

There's another rule too, known simply as 'Rule 11', but just like Rule 56, its extremely vaguely worded and often results in month long debates about the legitamacy of the cases, so most lawyers don't bother with it.

[lightdarkness]

and neither do the parents
and is there really a "rule 11, rule 56", i dont think there is, i think you are using them as examples, is that correct?

[Anticrombie0909]

No, Rule 56's offical name is 'Summary Judgement Motion' and is used in cases occasionally.

Rule 11 is hardly ever used, which is why you never hear about it.

[User6773]

What is truly sad about the judicial system is the amount of control they exact over the legislative branch. Any federal judge can declare any law unconstitutional for any reason. This is way too much power for one person to hold. And these judges aren't even directly elected by the people!

[Anticrombie0909]

Yes, but the federal judge has to have a tangible reason for his ruling. I agree that it is too much power for one man to hold, and so did the people who wrote the constitution. For a motion to be ruled unconstitutional, it has to be carried to the Supreme court where it has to be passed by a majority ruling.

[silverbloodedbob]

hmm i hate our legal system... but i hate all others too. i can't really think of one that would really work...

[Anticrombie0909]

Ok, here's one, tell me if you think it's fair. Keep in mind this is hypothetical, but is plausible enough to happen (and probably has under similar circumstances).

Say a disabled kid wants to play football. The coaches, for whatever reason, say no because of his disabilities. Well that kid can say 'this is unfair', bring it to court, and pull a lawsuit. Contraversially, if they do let him play, he could get hurt because of his disabilities, and then sue for not forbidding him from playing such a high contact sport. You see?

Here's another case (real one) that I heard about recently. A women in Florida accidentally hit an alligator in the street. She rushed out, found out that it was hurt but still alive. Trying to save its life, she put it in the car and was on the way to the vet's when she was pulled over and arrested, because possession of a live alligator is a felony. She will serve jail time. Is that Justice?

[heyhey11]

Say a disabled kid wants to play football. The coaches, for whatever reason, say no because of his disabilities. Well that kid can say 'this is unfair', bring it to court, and pull a lawsuit. Contraversially, if they do let him play, he could get hurt because of his disabilities, and then sue for not forbidding him from playing such a high contact sport. You see?

This could not happen because if they let him play he would have to fill out paper work saying he could not sue incase of injury. But not letting him play may be a legitimate case

Here's another case (real one) that I heard about recently. A women in Florida accidentally hit an alligator in the street. She rushed out, found out that it was hurt but still alive. Trying to save its life, she put it in the car and was on the way to the vet's when she was pulled over and arrested, because possession of a live alligator is a felony. She will serve jail time. Is that Justice?

thats just plain crazy but it is justice because it is not proven that she was taking to the vet it may have been her cover story